* Erik Bais
- Assignments smaller than the minimal allocation size, can’t be split into smaller assignments, but can be re-assigned as a complete assignment.
My reasoning is that it would disallow cutting up small assignments into even smaller assignments.
That is would be somewhat illogical IMHO. Assignments and allocations are two different things. The minimum allocation size has never been applied to assignments, so why start now? We've never had a minimum assignment size, at least not in recent years.
The question that I have is, would the community prefer a transfer policy proposal for PI with or without the above stated rule or limitation in freedom in transfers of PI.
Without. I am not at all concerned about the routing table here. There is nothing in policy nor in the RIPE database software that prevents people from adding /32 route objects and attempting to advertise them into the DFZ. There are at the moment 3888 route objects in the database with that are /25 or longer, but the routing community seem to be able to ignore them just fine. I don't see how "nano-PI" would be any different, the routing community won't have any difficulty ignoring those either. After all, a router couldn't care less if a route is from an inetnum with status "ASSIGNED PA" or "ASSIGNED PI". Or to put it another way, we don't need policy to forbid every bad idea under the sun. Let the routing community decide how they want to deal with this one. Tore